Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raichu/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 January 2024 [1].

Raichu[edit]

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Raichu, one of the original 151 Pokémon introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue, and more specifically the evolved form of series mascot Pikachu. This article is a bit of a culmination of refining how to approach character articles but more specifically Pokémon species articles, aimed to illustrate the importance of the character but also come from an approach that helps a reader unfamiliar with the subject of the Pokémon franchise grasp pertinent details regarding the character. Reception has been refined, aiming to illustrate the character in question across over twenty years worth of reactions towards it and its portrayals in the games and anime, and cited opinions regarding The Pokémon Company's handling of it in such mediums.Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cukie Gherkin[edit]

Should Raichu be a 'they' or an 'it'? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Raichus are a gendered species 'they' feels most appropriate unless we're talking about a singular Raichu in particular. - Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't virtually all species gendered though? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, the franchise does have a few monogendered species. Consensus from editors though has been to use "they" across the species articles in general.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's ultimately up to preference, whether to use 'it' or 'they' for a fictional species. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a check of every source, and am comfortable that what is being attributed to them is correct. I also feel that the spelling and grammar are appropriate. I've checked the images and found that they are appropriately sourced. All sources are archived with working archive links, and every source is either a primary, reliable, or situational source, with each source used to verify the appropriate information. The rationales are also appropriate - the lead image provides the main subject of the article, the second image shows the Alolan form, whose design has been discussed by designers and critics, with appropriate rationale accompanying it. Finally, the image of Raichu and Pikachu not only depicts the rivalry, but also shows Pikachu, which the rationale points out helps establish the difference between Pikachu and Raichu, which is relevant to what is being discussed in the article. Support (striking due to high involvement in article cleanup). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @FAC coordinators: Cukie Gherkin has (as at the timestamp to this message) made 53 edits to the article and is responsible for 22% of the authorship, according to the page stats; they are also replying to other reviewers. While I am sure this is all in good faith, it's unusual for someone in only their second third review to do source, image and text review, as well as joining replying to other reviewers. Should they be listed as a co-nom in this process? And, again I am sure it was in good faith, are these technical reviews sufficient to pass? I have not looked at the sourcing or image licensing, but I would question the use of one of the three non-free images on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SchroCat Which image do you feel needs stronger licensing? I can hopefully quickly fix that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are no limits on the number of images as long as each of them can individually be shown appropriate, having three in a relatively short article seems too much. Good picture in the IB, good one of the concept art - both have good reasons for being there (although I make no comment on the licensing or the rationales). File:Pokemon Raichu vs Pikachu.png is purely decorative to my eye and doesn't show anything that isn't explained by text alone: to me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SchroCat It's purpose is to show Pikachu's design in contrast to Raichu's alongside the visible animosity, a big part of the reception and intended as a point of reference alongside that section. Illustrating that with text alone would require a wordy comparison between the two to get the same point across I feel: Pikachu's design is different enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider to the topic, I don't see animosity in that single still image - and saying there is animosity between two characters does not need an image. SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SchroCat I do feel the more important use was the contrast in designs, but if you feel it's still an issue, its removed. Any other aspects you feel should be addressed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (By way of explanation and for future reference, the problem with the 'contrast in design' argument is that it's not addressed anywhere in the article, except to say that both store electricity in their cheeks, which wasn't strong enough for the rationale for having a third image on the page). - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: To be clear, this is a second account, my first having participated in multiple FACs as nominator or reviewer. Additionally, my bouts of edits are from two specific times: one where I copyedited it as a favor for the nominator prior to its GA nomination, and one following the opposition of another user, attempting to address the sourcing concerns. However, I will nevertheless strike it if it would make the process more comfortable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely up to the co-ords - I was just flagging it up to them, although I see that in your only previous source review (under this account name), Gog had to then do a second sweep to cover some of the basics that were missed, and in this review two people have issues with the level of sources (and I have unease with some of them, but not enough to oppose or comment at this point). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain what the purpose of bringing that up is; while I did not examine whether page numbers were accurate or consistency in citation formatting, what I did do was accurate, asked to review the article and check these details. As far as high-quality source assessment, there's inevitably going to be some disagreement. I would contend that the belief that there is an issue of low-quality sources is overstated, especially considering that an editor identified IGN, which has roundly been considered a high-quality source for virtually all video game featured articles, was identified as being less preferable compared to other sources for no other reason than because they are academic or published works. Of these sources, one had a factual error, making it unusable for anything of value, and another is just a trivia book. It suggests to me that people are arguing for the aesthetic of high-quality sourcing, which is concerning to me. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with the thought that "people are arguing for the aesthetic of high-quality sourcing". It's not about aesthetics: it's about standards. And I mentioned the previous review because it wasn't of a sufficient to meet FAC standards. As I said, I was flagging this up for the FAC Coords, rather than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the over-reliance on primary sources such as the official website, included manuals, the TV show, and tweets. I strongly doubt ScreenRant is a high quality RS --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Screen Rant is not the most high-quality reliable source, on the perennial sources page, the way the site is used in this article does not contradict any guidelines on its usage. It is not a controversial statement about a living person, and it is being used for an entertainment-related topic. What would your thoughts be if primary sources were largely replaced with reliable sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1c requires high-quality reliable sources and the RSP listing calls Screen Rant a marginally reliable source. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guerillero Replaced all the primary sources possible with secondary sources. We did lose one Japanese VA credit in the process here; unfortunately I believe that is the only way to credit that individual, as with this particular franchise many voice actors weren't credited in secondary sources (and only the English end often at all). As for ScreenRant, it does have a full editorial process, and the author Niki Fakhoori has written for other publications including Prima Games and RPGFan, the latter of which she is listed on its staff page as a reviews editor. So she has some credentials.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Very good. I will take another look this evening -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have some concerns about the sources, not just in that some aren't high quality, but I see very few academic sources. Compare the Kotaku and IGN articles to sources like these:
These are the sort of sources I'd expect to see in a featured article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thebiguglyalien And the sources used are the best ones available to us. Looking through the sources listed above, the first is asserting something completely contrary to the developer's own statements on the character origin and the origin of its name, the second is included, and the third is essentially a trivia book. If these are the sources we are arguing in place of Kotaku's, which is giving a nuanced examination of how the character was handled and the impact on public perception, we're going to have a weak article, not to mention one that fails the SIGCOV standard of notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also contend that merely having a reputable publisher doesn't make it a better choice than Kotaku or IGN. As discussed, the use of academic sources is done to the best extent possible, whereas the third, for example, would be used for the sake of using academic sources, not necessarily because it is a quality source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that all sources need to be "high quality". Establishing that a source is reliable is insufficient at FAC.

Oppose from Gog the Mild[edit]

The article needs a "Background" section. At the moment it comes close to being written in-universe, and certainly doesn't explain what [a?] pokemon are/is, how the concept[?] originated and how it was developed. There seems to be an assumption throughout the concept of pokemon is already understood by a reader, to the extent that I do not think that it can be said that it "places the subject in context". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild The very first paragraph of Conception and development details what a pokemon is and the basics of the concept in relation to the game. It's right at the start of the article. This information was also considered adequate for another featured article, MissingNo., to establish to the reader the basic concepts of what a Pokemon is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I have no concept of what may be missing from the article that may make it confusing. If you could, could you identify how this could be improved? "Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Pokémon series began in Japan in 1996 with the release of Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy.[6] In these games, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train creatures called Pokémon. Players use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon, and some can transform into stronger species, or evolve. The ultimate goal is to complete the Pokémon index (Pokédex), a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia, by capturing, evolving, and trading to obtain creatures from all Pokémon species." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to know enough about pokemon to be able to point out what information is missing? That doesn't really work. But, just by way of illustration, "Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Pokémon series began in Japan in 1996 with the release of Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy" makes no sense to a non-aficionado. I count four things which need explaining in line, and you still won't have an explanatory sentence, because you haven't said what it was. From a passing reference in the lead, would I be correct in assuming that this 1996 publication was as a card trading game? (Whatever that is?) If not, could a reader be told what it was?
My previous encounters with pokemon have involved numerous acquaintances taking a sudden uncharacteristic interest in healthy exercise and exploring new places, then staring at their phones so intently that they walked into street furniture and trees. I know that Raichu feature in this and it seems improbable that it is not a widespread phenomenon/activity/game/thing. So is it mentioned in the article? I don't see it.
Thanks for prompting me to read the article in full, as this has caused me to move from having noticed one deficit to forming an opinion on the whole article. Which unfortunately is that while it has clearly been lovingly put together by editors with a real grasp of the subject, it fails to do what encyclopedia articles are for: explain the topic to the ignorant. Eg and purely as one example "Typically, players must use a Thunder Stone item on a Pikachu to evolve it into Raichu" communicates nothing to anyone who is not familiar with pokemon already. I'm sorry, but I think that fixing this systematic flaw throughout the article is going to take more work than one can reasonably expect at FAC. I recommend that you withdraw the nomination, have a good hard look at my comments and those of the other reviewers here, and also consider GoCER and/or PR before resubmitting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to just withdraw this nomination. I feel there is a serious disconnect between GA and FA quality, but also on how the FAC process is viewing articles like this overall. If this is the overall approach we're taking towards a subject, pushing trivial sources that say little over reliable fleshed out sources that examine a subject, then FA feels less like a quality goal and more to be frank a gatekept rank that very few fictional characters, let alone video game characters, will be able to obtain regardless of notability. Also, while I assume good faith, I feel the above argument is demanding an absurd level of explanation on topics: if a reader cannot grasp the mention of an item in a video game, when it's been established as a video game, you're requiring a level of overdetailing that veers into undue weight. No offense meant, but the sentence you dropped and the sentence provided are very different; someone with no concept of Pokemon is going to understand the basic idea of using an item in a video game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are correct that it is a big step from GAN to FAC. Many an other editor has been bruised by the jump. In the old days A class reviews filled the gap, but almost no projects continue to offer this. And please assume good faith, all of the editors commenting are experienced at FAC, have their own tales of woe and are willing to go out of their ways to avoid other editors encountering similar; and have multiple records of nurturing new FACers and strange topics through the process. We celebrate when a nominator achieves there first FAC. Re video game characters at FAC, we could certainly do with more. Off the top of my head, the last one I recall personally promoting was Ur-Quan, and that was a couple of years ago. But take heart, by comparison Raichu is mainstream. Gog the Mild (talk)
@Gog the Mild Actually I'm going to bring it up more directly. Right in the second paragraph: "Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's 'Thunder Stone' item". This sentence establishes to the reader it's an in-game item. It doesn't make sense to re-establish that later. That's why this is frustrating to deal with, because the argument you made ignores the rest. There is an active approach to explain to the reader unfamiliar with the game's what these concepts are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arriving at this discussion after being solicited by Gog the Mild. I'm here to try to mediate and it shouldn't be taken as me supporting one side or another. I will only share what I learned from bringing fictional topics to the average reader.
    • First is audience. A Good Article will be reviewed by your peers with similar expertise, but a Featured Article will be reviewed by someone from a completely different field of expertise. I recall my game content reviewed by people whose expertise is in Billiards, or Military History. Their ignorance of your chosen topic is not a flaw, it's actually for everyone's benefit. When I read a military history article, I may criticize them and say "hey, the average person might not know the first thing about the Ottoman Empire and you just jump right in without telling me the basics of who/what/when". Nobody is trying to be frustrating or pedantic. We are all trying to make our article informative for the maximum number of readers.
    • One of the most useful guidelines is "State the WP:OBVIOUS". You have to take off your "expert" hat and pretend you're almost completely ignorant of the world, and yet, somehow also a savant writer. It helps to start with the complete basics, "X is a 19XX video game where players collect fantastical beasts and position them against each other in battle." You might care about all the rich and interesting details, but the reader won't understand (or care) unless you can slowly get them there.
    • The first sentence of the body is underrated, and often wasted. Get to the point, and state it clearly. Common errors I see are trying to pack too much information into that first sentence, or assuming someone has thoroughly read and understood the lead. It's useful to understand the game, but even more important to understand the subject of the article. "X is a video game character." That's a good first sentence: it's short, it's clear, and gives readers the most basic context to start to understand the subject. Obviously it will be a bit longer, but not by much. Think about newspaper pyramid style: give people the headline, and then gradually add more detail, with the most specific details at the end of a section.
    • The average reader is going to ask "why should I care?" Which inevitably means you have to explain that topic's impact on the real world, because you can't assume that they care deeply about the fiction. It actually isn't a high bar, if a fictional element has any amount of reception in reliable secondary sources. It asks editors to really boil the critical reception down to what matters. Did it win awards? Become a mass market phenomenon? Inspire other game developers to make more games? Earn unfavorable comparisons to something else? There is room for other smaller bits of "this journalist liked it, that journalist hated it". But if you turn the reception into a collection of quotes and reactions, then the article will fail to convey anything to the average reader. It's almost always a bad idea to give every reviewer a lot WP:WEIGHT, with multiple sentences, including a pull-quote. The article will lose sight of the forest, and get stuck on each individual tree. There is a lot of power in being concise: "This element was given a negative reception by X,[1] Y,[2], and z.[3]" Even more specific, "Many reviewers compared X to Y unfavorably, including X,[1] Y,[2] and Z.[3]"
    • Especially for fictional content, treat the reception and development as co-equal elements in the article. An ideal encyclopedia article doesn't get lost in the fictional details. Its impact outside the fiction becomes as important as the fiction itself. Development is also underrated, because that also tie the topic back to important real-world events at the time it was being created. What were its authors trying to achieve with this creation? Did they actually achieve it?
    • There is no gatekeeping. These are the same expectations of a football player, an ancient empire, a subway system, a renaissance painting, or a social media influencer. These different topics don't need to be equally impactful on the real-world, but they do need to have impact, and you do need to state it clearly and concisely. It's okay to make an article about something that is a niche, or even about something that is mediocre or average! That just becomes its impact: it was received as average, and 20 years later, people remember it as average.
  • If any of what I said is obvious, I hope my effort can be taken as a reminder, and not as a lecture. I also don't claim to be the authoritative source on FA. There can be more than one way to write a featured article article. (But there are many more wrong ways.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I queried Shooterwalker because their first FAC was on a video game fictional character and I thought they may have helpful input - one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may share my perspective, I think there are good points made about making it clearer for non-experts, but I also feel that some of the things identified as being inscrutable to non-experts are easily scruted! For example, unless I misunderstood, the nature of "Game Freak" and "Nintendo" seemed to be identified as potentially inscrutable, but I would contend that there's not much you can elaborate upon without going into excessive detail. Being that Game Freak was identified as having developed Pokémon Red and Blue, and Nintendo was identified as having published it, the reader would naturally infer that one is a developer and the other is a publisher. Now, identifying that Red and Blue are video games would certainly help provide additional context, I'll give you that much, but I don't feel that Game Freak and Nintendo themselves would be confusing to a large majority of readers. I also feel that the issue of video game terminology and concepts is not typically applied like this; for example, in Sonic the Hedgehog 2's article, the genre of the game is identified as a platform game. Now, if I was someone who never played a video game, I would not be able to discern without reading further into the article what it means to be a platform game. Now, that is not to say that Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was approved using low standards, or that there is anything wrong in the article, but to me, the specific criticisms feel surprising. For what it's worth, I did poll a handful of non-game players that I know, and all were able to identify what Nintendo and Game Freak from context clues. Not evidence by any means, just my personal experience.
As far as gatekeeping goes, I can certainly see why Kung Fu Man feels that way. Using Sonic the Hedgehog 2 as an example once again (to clarify, great article), sources identified as perhaps lower-quality (but not inherently low quality) are used, and for more than just reviews. In this review, I saw what I would consider low-quality sources - namely, a trivia book and a book with a verifiable factual error - proposed on the basis that they were academic in nature and published. Now, I absolutely understand the value of academic papers and other published works, and I don't even begrudge the notion that more should be included, but I hope you can understand why someone would look at the comparison - between reliable video game websites that discuss the subject in extreme detail to sources that are either low quality or discuss Raichu to only a trivial degree - would be bewildering. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add one more thing specific to video games. My mind has currently been on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Video_game_characters#Next_step:_C-class_Article_Improvement_Drive.
I've noticed a pattern with C-class articles where the reception feels like a collage of quotes from every third-party source we can find. That is a feature of our AFD system: people are fighting hard just to prove that something has WP:SIGCOV. The safest way to pass the AFD bar isn't to focus on the quality of the article. It's to pile on every source they can, in hopes that it passes a threshold of WP:SIGCOV.
After the AFD is over, a lot of editors fail to revisit the article structure and ask "is this actually serving the reader?" (It's not. It's serving the AFD by measuring its WP:SIGCOV in inches, instead of writing something informative.) This structure may even stick around as the article gets to GA status. People can polish the grammar and the citation templates, but the organization never improves.
A featured article should be confident in its own notability. The article won't give every source equal airtime (or any airtime) in order to justify the value of the topic. The article demonstrates its value by stating a few things, clearly. That means some of the supporting sources will be covered briefly, if at all.
Even though the "collage of news clippings" is the wrong approach, I can see the utility. There is a part of me that believes in the importance of preserving what every journalist has said about a topic across all of history. But that's a fundamentally different project than Wikipedia. And readers who want that level of detail can click through the sources in the reference section. For me personally, I found my articles became better when I let go of the need to thoroughly catalog every single source. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that reception needs improving across the board; going back to articles I edited in the past, I found myself deleting almost the entire reception section in some cases because it was either very trivial, or could be easily summed up in a sentence - like Epona, you could just say "Epona was regarded as an iconic horse in video games" and that's it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as things have gone on, the "grab anything you can" approach to fictional character articles has diminished, and even as we're going through the C-class-improvement drive we're seeing weaker subjects merged. But some subjects just are are not going to get detailed scholarly or published works talking about them. And when the suggestion is made that a source talking examining a subject and its finer points is less important than one barely mentioning a subject in a trivial manner simply because the latter is a paper...well it's hard not to get annoyed. There needs to be consideration of what's being said, and to an extent by who, otherwise FA is essentially unobtainable for the vast majority of character articles on the project.
Explaining things for better understanding is one thing. That is something that can be addressed, and lower quality sources to confirm facts can be replaced to boot. But when someone is arguing against the reception as a whole, and that stuff like a trivia book is somehow superior, it's easy to see why one can get frustrated. Disemboweling the article in turn to work in just those sources not only ends up defeating the point of establishing why the subject was important, but causes it to fail notability. You can see the problem there, yes? There needs to be some consideration.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of telling you what you may already know, when you have an issue like the sources one, agree on what you can; then compromise where you possibly can, and talk convincingly and nicely to the reviewer as to why they should compromise. If you are left with say, one source under debate -if youcan't possibly tweak the article to do without it - the reviewer should explain why they are opposing over this; you then calmly explain why you disagree, and it is possible that the closing FAC coordinator will agree with you. I have promoted articles over outstanding opposes several times. I realise that this is easier to say than to do with an article to which you have committed toil, sweat, tears and possibly blood; I really do - I have not yet punted my monitor through the window over an inane comment from a thick-witted reviewer about one of my nominations, but I have thought about it. But I know that they mean well and more likely than not either they have a point or they don't but it is not something I am going to go to the barricades over. And surprisingly often a rational, ideally policy based, response persuades them. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Gog the Mild Haven't been ignoring you, but not entirely sure on the withdraw process here. Are you able to forcibly close this as a coordinator?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If you wish to ping all of the coordinators, use {{@FAC}}. Or, although I am recused, if you make a clear request here for the nomination to be withdrawn I can archive it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am making a clear request that I would like this nomination to be withdrawn. It can be approached better after a peer review.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, I can action this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Raichu/archive1&oldid=1199788336"